Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Free Speech Died On Campus

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the marching-band-refused-to-yield dept.

Education 530

theodp writes "The WSJ catches up with FIRE's Greg Lukianoff and his crusade to expose how universities have become the most authoritarian institutions in America. In Unlearning Liberty, Lukianoff notes that baby-boom Americans who remember the student protests of the 1960s tend to assume that U.S. colleges are still some of the freest places on earth. But that idealized university no longer exists. Today, university bureaucrats suppress debate with anti-harassment policies that function as de facto speech codes. FIRE maintains a database of such policies on its website. What they share, lifelong Democrat Lukianoff says, is a view of 'harassment' so broad and so removed from its legal definition that 'literally every student on campus is already guilty.'"

cancel ×

530 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yeah! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020007)

This guy is advocating racism and sexual harassment! Shall we defeat him, PC gang?

Re:Yeah! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020127)

TFA is typical right wing conspiracy babble, the kind of no-name site linked to by Drudge Report. I'm surprised we didn't see bits about Obama being Muslim and "not a believer in American Exceptionalism (tm)".

Wow, don't have opinions online.. (5, Informative)

slashkitty (21637) | about 2 years ago | (#42020011)

Norfolk State: "The policy broadly prohibits using any university internet technology resources "to further personal views" or "religious or political causes." It also prohibits downloading or transmitting "inappropriate messages or images," without defining "inappropriate."

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020135)

That was a major issue at my University, StFX.

The entire "community code" was so vague, you were in violation of something at any given time. They put fines on student accounts for violations, and don't release transcripts unless they're paid.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (4, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 2 years ago | (#42020615)

I suspect that runs afoul of contract law.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (5, Interesting)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about 2 years ago | (#42020223)

Norfolk State: "The policy broadly prohibits using any university internet technology resources "to further personal views" or "religious or political causes." It also prohibits downloading or transmitting "inappropriate messages or images," without defining "inappropriate."

Unfortunately, most universities don't have an explicit policy in place. If you're an undergraduate, rather than tell you they don't want opposing viewpoints, they'll just graduate you quickly with average marks. But if you're a graduate student? Your advisory commity will they'll revoke your funding (after the first year), your review committee will slow-walk your research, your lab-coordinator will have difficulty finding you space to work and - if you're lucky - you'll be forced to write massive changes into your thesis before you graduate. If you're not lucky? That's 3-5 years of study with no degree.

Graduate studies costs 4-5x more than undergrad studies, and carry a stigma of "Well, you couldn't cut it there, why would we accept you here?".

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (5, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42020695)

Your advisory commity will they'll revoke your funding (after the first year), your review committee will slow-walk your research, your lab-coordinator will have difficulty finding you space to work and - if you're lucky - you'll be forced to write massive changes into your thesis before you graduate. If you're not lucky? That's 3-5 years of study with no degree.

This is true, I've seen this. But usually it's not because you are in the wrong party. In the cases I've seen, it's been some kind of weird personal vendetta.

In one case I knew a physics student failed his oral exams because he was too confident. In another case, for a music degree, a professor didn't like the student because he didn't take enough notes in his class. The student complained to other professors, and the answer he got was, "Yeah, it's not fair, but we have to live and work with him, we don't have to deal with you, so we're not going to do anything about it."

It's a lousy system, and it's as if professors feel they need to fail somebody, and if there isn't anyone bad enough to fail, they'll find some other reason to fail them.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (0, Offtopic)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42020285)

Norfolk State: "The policy broadly prohibits using any university internet technology resources "to further personal views" or "religious or political causes."

If you use taxpayer funded university resources to promote religious causes, that arguably violates the establishment clause.

If you want to promote your personal views, pay for your own website or attend and pay for a private university, don't do it with tax dollars.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (5, Insightful)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#42020375)

so if you are using your personal computing device you need to go off campus to post your opinions??

also btw you are using the normal WRONG reading of the first amendment.

this should not be used to force me to be atheist.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (0, Troll)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42020651)

so if you are using your personal computing device you need to go off campus to post your opinions??

You shouldn't use public university networks or university web sites to promote your religious or political views. If that means you have to go outside campus to update your Bible website, like the rest of us, then so be it. I don't see why I should pay taxes so that you can promote your religion.

this should not be used to force me to be atheist.

It doesn't force you to "be" anything. The policy simply prohibits taxpayer funded resources or the name of a publicly funded university to promote your religious views, whatever they may be.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (0)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 2 years ago | (#42020739)

Fuck that, to leave campus, they have to use TAXPAYER funded roads. If they want to update their bible website, they can build their own roads to do it with.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42020515)

Any "university" or "college" that can't tolerate non-PC opinions isn't a college at all. Instead, it's an indoctrination center. Which, apparently, is fine with you, as you support the goals of the indoctrination.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (1)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42020591)

Any "university" or "college" that can't tolerate non-PC opinions isn't a college at all.

The policy we're talking about isn't about "tolerating" opinion, it is about using taxpayer funded resources to promote and advertise those opinions. That is not OK.

In class, you should be able speak your mind in whatever PC or non-PC way you like.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42020659)

"Taxpayer funded" means almost nothing in this context. Many, even most, students are "paying customers" who have the right to use the resources for which they are paying.

Neither the university, nor the public, has the right to curtail those rights by claiming that the internet belongs to them. In fact, they only own a few pieces of gear that interface with the internet.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (2, Insightful)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42020723)

Tax payers pay for a large part of these universities, that's what makes them public universities. If you don't like the restrictions that come with that, attend a fully privately funded university; there are enough of them around, and they can adopt whatever policies they like.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 2 years ago | (#42020685)

Any "university" or "college" that can't tolerate non-PC opinions isn't a college at all.

The policy we're talking about isn't about "tolerating" opinion, it is about using taxpayer funded resources to promote and advertise those opinions. That is not OK.

In class, you should be able speak your mind in whatever PC or non-PC way you like.

Actually, it is okay, up to a point. Constitutional Law has rules about what you're allowed to do at a limited public forum. And about what you're allowed to do in a fully public forum, like a sidewalk. Sidewalks are also taxpayer funded resources, but they still enjoy constitutional protection. The same goes for a plaza or public park, like Boston Common. There are limit on free speech that apply even in those places, but the rule isn't a cut-and-dried taxpayer funding issue.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (2, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | about 2 years ago | (#42020613)

Stop promoting your personal view on slashdot and start commenting on your own site.
Hypocrite douchebag.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (4, Funny)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42020729)

Slashdot is private; if the people who pay for it don't like what I post, they can ban me and I have no problem with that.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (5, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | about 2 years ago | (#42020737)

Note that the 1st amendment also says that the government can't prohibit the free exercise of religion either, including its expression through speech and the press. There is a world of difference between a student or ordinary citizen expressing themselves in a voluntary manner (aka offering a prayer right before a test on their own or holding a prayer vigil on Christmas Eve in a public area... even on public property) as opposed to having the government mandate that you must pray to a certain god or have tithing extracted from your paycheck as a tax.

I don't have a problem with a student setting up a web page expressing their religious opinions using government funds... as long as you offer that same opportunity to all of the students on a reasonable basis to express whatever their opinion is including having no opinion or even being against organized religions in general. The problem is the censorship, and this attitude that religious expression is something that should be feared.

I think it would even be healthy to have a "debate corner" on a college campus where any student could express any political opinion they may have... including "hate speech" full of bigotry, sexism, and racism. If you think some sort of speech should be censored, you definitely don't understand the purpose or the philosophy behind the 1st amendment and why it was ratified in the first place. Suggesting that university websites, dorm doors, or even bulletin boards should be off limits to religious expression completely misses the mark... especially at a public school. Private schools have a little more latitude to ban some forms of speech as there is a contractual relationship to even attend. It definitely shouldn't be the other way around.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020373)

I don't actually have a huge problem with this one. It's not saying you can't say that kind of stuff online, just not to use thier stuff to do it. It's kind of like asking the person who borrowed my phone not to make death threats, if they want to do it do it with their own phone.

Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (3, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42020535)

Poor analogy. The students are paying customers, who have the right to free speech. These universities might as well publish the fact that they require their students to be politically correct, or they are unwanted on campus.

Christian Bible colleges basically do that. If you're an atheist, a muslim, or maybe a wicca, Bob Jones University doesn't really want you studying on their campus.

Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020015)

Let's see. Highly biased summary, source is the Murdoch-owned WSJ. Who wants to bet this is bellyaching about "liberals"?

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (5, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#42020141)

Nice ad hominem. Instead of reading the source and arguing with the points made, you drool on yourself and blabber on about Murdoch.

The fact is that free speech in America has been getting more and more curtailed. Some in a very overt manner (free speech zones). Some in a softer manner (How DARE you suggest that affirmative action is racist, you racist). But the US is not as free as it used to be. No, we are nowhere near a totalitarian state. But freedoms do not go away overnight. If we continue to let the slide continue, we'll be closer to the totalitarian state. Freedoms are hard to get back once they've been ceded.

But thanks for your idiotic response. If anything, it was a nice foil.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020215)

Posting anonymous so I don't lose my mod points.

> Instead of reading the source and arguing with the points made ...

Everyone here, please read this. This is part of the problem. "If my guy does it, you're just overreacting if you disagree," and "if their guy does it, it's automatically suspect, move along, nothing to see."

Forget political parties. Forget Democrat or Republican, or WSJ vs. NYT. If speech is being curtailed, that should concern you.

Example: friend of mine works with my wife at the Social Security Administration, where the rules are so byzantine, they can mean anything you want them to this week. This friend jokes that says things like, "my, you're looking remarkably neutral and androgynous today." It's fun to watch their puzzled expressions as they try to decide whether it's a compliment, an insult, or something that merits a formal EEOC complaint.

Freedom of speech means FREEDOM OF SPEECH. As the Supreme Court of the US has ruled many times, even OFFENSIVE speech must be protected. Even speech with which you might personally disagree.

This should concern every one of you, regardless of your ideological bent.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (5, Informative)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 2 years ago | (#42020417)

"If my guy does it, you're just overreacting if you disagree," and "if their guy does it, it's automatically suspect, move along, nothing to see."

Except, you and the guy you are supporting are completely wrong about what's going on here. This really is a Murdock propaganda piece. Look, sometimes a person is reliably and consistently stupid and evil. This means saying "oh, I'm sure Ghengis isn't riding towards those young girls to be nice to them" is not prejudice, just justifiable wisdom. Now your point would be really great if this was an exception. But let's see what I find if I look it up.

WSJ:

At Western Michigan University, it is considered harassment to hold a "condescending sex-based attitude."

Actual policy [wmich.edu] (I'm not going to include the context here; please read yourself):

Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual conduct which is related to any condition of employment or evaluation of student performance.

and in a separate paragraph near to but not related to the definition of harassment, the only use of the word condescending:

All persons should be sensitive to situations that may affect or cause the recipient discomfort or humiliation or may display a condescending sex-based attitude towards a person.

If something is put in a media outlet which belongs to Murdock, assuming that the truth is the opposite will only make you wrong about 10% of the time. In this case, it's about Murdock trying to attack the freedom of speech of the people at universities.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (-1, Flamebait)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42020605)

"All persons should be sensitive"

Complete and utter hogwash. Sensitive is a feminine trait, it's been adopted by gays, and it's a weapon against anyone who produces testosterone. Pure shit, I say. And, when language is even a little bit vague, there will always be someone who tries to use the language to punish a person like myself.

I refuse to be part of the collective mind, and I refuse to be sensitive. I won't go out of my way to cause someone pain, grief, or anxiety - but if you're offended by something I say, then it's YOUR problem, not mine. Don't expect me to be "sensitive" to your problems.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (0)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 2 years ago | (#42020673)

"All persons should be sensitive"

Complete and utter hogwash.....blah blah....

Are you saying that they should or shouldn't be allowed to say that?

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (5, Insightful)

Dragon Bait (997809) | about 2 years ago | (#42020655)

"If my guy does it, you're just overreacting if you disagree," and "if their guy does it, it's automatically suspect, move along, nothing to see."

Except, you and the guy you are supporting are completely wrong about what's going on here. This really is a Murdock propaganda piece. Look, sometimes a person is reliably and consistently stupid and evil. This means saying "oh, I'm sure Ghengis isn't riding towards those young girls to be nice to them" is not prejudice, just justifiable wisdom. Now your point would be really great if this was an exception. But let's see what I find if I look it up.

Even a blind pig occasionally finds acorns. My oldest made the comment that "children are nothing but a black hole of need." Some PC idiot said "you can't say that, that's racist." The teacher walked by and told her that she wasn't to make such racist comments in the future (and threatened her with explosion).

Universities are no longer liberal institutions where ideas can be freely discussed. Idiocy and censorship do abound. But feel free to shoot the messenger and ignore the problem.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (3, Interesting)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | about 2 years ago | (#42020641)

Forget political parties. Forget Democrat or Republican, or WSJ vs. NYT. If speech is being curtailed, that should concern you.

You make a very good point. If free speech is being infringed by the government we should all be concerned, regardless of who brings that issue to our attention or if the act is being done by a specific political party. I think, however, you go a little too far in your equivocation. The trustworthiness of our sources of information are important and by excluding particular details or simply misrepresenting the facts an issue of speech not being subsidized by a specific organization can be misrepresented as that speech being censored, and make no mistake these are very different things.

When you write, "WSJ vs. NYT" red flags go off in my mind. You're presenting not just publications favored by political parties, but one publication with a very solid history of integrity and factual presentation of information with a publication owned by a very deceptive corporation. The Newscorp organization is a big fan of free speech, insomuch as they went to court to defend their free speech rights to publish news stories they knew were untrue and to fire the reporters who refused to present them. And hey, they're correct. They do have the right to tell complete untruths to their viewers and readers. But at the same time their actions make it abhorrent to mention them in the same breath as the NYT and make me think anyone who believes anything they read in Newscorp publications is an uninformed idiot.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 2 years ago | (#42020239)

I think too, that as speech becomes based on private technology, there is a movement that "free speech" has to be "earned" on each said platform. If ever there was a time "he who pays the bills" has become the mantra.

The Free Speech and debating hall in the student union has now been rented to Starbucks. After all, it's not the University's job to provide places for students to discuss stuff not related to the coursework they pay for.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (1)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42020413)

I think too, that as speech becomes based on private technology

"Becomes?" Printing presses, newspapers, radio stations, and television have always been "private technology" and privately owned, and they have exercised strong control over speech. Lower prices have made free speech far more accessible to people.

It would probably be a good idea to consider something similar to "common carrier status" for Internet providers, prohibiting them explicitly from exercising any control. But that would be an innovation in free speech and mass media.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (3, Interesting)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | about 2 years ago | (#42020341)

The fact is that free speech in America has been getting more and more curtailed. Some in a very overt manner (free speech zones). Some in a softer manner (How DARE you suggest that affirmative action is racist, you racist).

You seem to have a misconception about what free speech is. Your first example is about restricting people to particular locations in order to prevent their speech from being heard... all good so far. Your second example, however, is about someone exercising their free speech to criticize someone else's speech. It is an example of free speech, not an example of free speech being restricted.

Nice ad hominem. Instead of reading the source and arguing with the points made, you drool on yourself and blabber on about Murdoch.

You make a good point that we should be judging articles on their merit, however, technically it was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is the informal fallacy of claiming some argument is wrong based upon some characteristic of the person making the argument. The previous poster made no claim that the argument was wrong, but merely pointed out the untrustworthy nature of the publication and exposited on what they thought the content was likely to be. I highly encourage you to read a book on informal logic as it is a very useful tool/method and will help you not only argue with more precision, but refine your understanding of logically determining truths.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020611)

Nothing to do with free speech necessarily, but the comment about racist are the only ones who disagree with affirmative action comment. Because every time a comment is made that liberals disagree with and they can't debate facts their defacto response is to call the other person racist. It has become so bad over the last few years that when someone is called a racist I tend to read what they said and most of the time it is reasonable. The left has turned the term racist into meaning anti-socialism reasonable limitations on government power. It no longer has any relation to races of people.

Now if there were actually a racist out there, I would no longer know it because they have "cried wolf" so frequently and so often that it is drowned out. Hell, just look at Allen West election in Florida. Al Sharpton thinks West doesn't deserve a recount with his election loss being so close to the automatic recount level. That may ACTUALLY be a racist comment by Sharpton, but he is a member of the left and immune to such calls, along with him also being black and a supposed fighter against racism. But what Sharpton pretends to be isn't what his actions lead you to believe. If West was a Democrat Sharpton would be all over the news complaining that West isn't getting a recount because he is black and people who think he shouldn't get a recount are racist. See, a perfect example of how calls of being racist has NOTHING to do with race, but more to do with political affiliation.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (0, Flamebait)

Stiletto (12066) | about 2 years ago | (#42020347)

Turns out grandparent poster is right. From the article:

The latest was last week at Fordham University, where President Joseph McShane scolded College Republicans for the sin of inviting Ann Coulter to speak.

Conservatives and libertarians are especially vulnerable to such charges of harassment.

It's basically a bunch of crybaby Republicans whining about how unwelcome on campus their harassment of women, minorities, gays, muslims, any anyone else not like them is.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42020735)

It's basically a bunch of crybaby Republicans whining about how unwelcome on campus their harassment of women, minorities, gays, muslims, any anyone else not like them is.

Freedom of speech isn't free anymore when you stop crybaby Republicans from whining.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (3, Insightful)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42020395)

The fact is that free speech in America has been getting more and more curtailed.

"Free speech" means that the government doesn't punish you for what you say. Legally, free speech has been increasing steadily: you can say things now about sex, politics, and religion that would have landed you in legal trouble half a century ago.

But "free speech" doesn't mean that you can say anything anywhere without consequences. Your fellow citizens can still punish you for what you say. Business can refuse to deal with you. Liberal universities can kick you out for spewing Christian fundamentalist nonsense, and Christian universities can kick you out for spewing progressive nonsense. That's what living in a free country means. And thanks to the Internet, we have more opportunity to engage in free speech than ever before.

The sky isn't falling on free speech; quite the opposite, free speech is legally protected than ever before and there are more venues for it than ever before. The only thing anybody might reasonably complain about is that tax dollars are used so widely to support one or the other viewpoint indirectly. That's not new, but that kind of (unconstitutional) government support has shifted from conservative causes to liberal causes. The answer is not to shift it back, the answer is to eliminate such government involvement.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (2)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about 2 years ago | (#42020409)

Look, America has an unhealthy obsession with "private-good; public-bad". And guess what, the private sector does not need -- nor desires -- to enforce free speech. You want universities to be havens of free speech? It's a 2-step process:
  - make them public / make the institutions which are necessary for the public good follow the same rules as public institutions.
  - demand of the public institutions to respect your rights. This is actually pretty easy.

Also, the OP is right: it is a crybaby Murdoch piece about people unhappy that they can't hate in peace.

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42020561)

Affirmative action is indeed racism. Reverse-racism is no less racist than the original overt racism that triggered the reverse-racism.

And, you might have pointed out for GP that Herr Bush instituted the so-called "free speech zones".

Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (4, Insightful)

chmod a+x mojo (965286) | about 2 years ago | (#42020563)

Yeah, well, the site is retarded. They rated my University "red" because we have policies in place to prevent discrimination and hate speech. Heaven forbid the poor racist bastards would get punished if they make some other student who just wants their own educations life a living hell. Same with the sexual harassment codes. Nope, we have to get up in arms just cause you can't derogatorily call that black dude a nigger or the Chinese chick a chink, and damn it all who gives a shit what that chick thinks... we all know they just want the cock, am I right? Seriously, ro read what they have "issues" with the "openness" of the speech with the University of Wisconsin, it's a damn joke.

As long as you are not intentionally being offensive you can chalk messages on the sidewalk... just provide the chalk, no need for permission - this includes political views, religious views, and pretty much anything else you want. Same with dorm rooms, you want to post intentionally offensive stuff on your dorm room? Post it on the inside of the door, the harassment codes specifically state that as a matter of fact.

Shit, we just had an annual remembrance get-together remembering when a bunch of student had a huge protest in the 60's that had hundreds of arrests and over a hundred expulsions. The school provided funds to something that basically was just rubbing the schools face in the dog shit.

TL;DR: site was shit, just a bunch of whiny idiots complaining because they can't be racist / sexist / harassing anyone anywhere.

Look up FIRE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020033)

LOL FIRE. I also love the "lifelong Democrat" label, as if that's supposed to insulate them from the very obvious criticism that FIRE is basically a wing of the Republican party. "I have tons of Democratic friends"

Re:Look up FIRE (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#42020277)

Another idiot using an ad hominem attack.

FIRE was founded about 15 years ago by a civil liberties professor. So your "Republican wing" comment is pretty stupid. It promotes free speech on campus, even those that might be the most upstanding or "socially polite". If anything, they are more like the ACLU than RNC.

But yeah, dismiss things out of hand with no factual basis. Then immediately afterward, pat yourself on the back for being an intellectual.

Universities are way too PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020049)

I think I'll start a talk radio program and make it a point to be as un-PC as possible. I bet I can get millions of listeners! I'll be rich and famous!

Oh wait...

Re:Universities are way too PC (2, Informative)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 2 years ago | (#42020321)

That worked for Springer, Stern, Coulter, Imas, and Limbaugh!

Right up until FOX has to step in and get the Supreme Court to declare "lying" as protected free speech... To keep them on the air.

The CONSERVATIVES RULE the airwaves for non-PC talk. Even Springer and Stern are "Right" shows because they treat their subjects as "freak of the week" while shouting "look how offensive I am!"

It's sad when NPR is the last "liberal" holdout.. As they make an honest attempt to have discussion . Even the BBC gets labeled as liberal when they are the closest thing we have to 1960's style news people remember.

I'm sure this is more of a fraud than reality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020055)

I've seen a lot of bullies and hecklers upset that they don't get their way, whining that their free speech right to harass and intimidate folks is so very important that nothing else can be considered.

This makes me think this is more of a fraud perpetuated by self-professed victims who are themselves the problem than a reality.

Coporate Influence (5, Insightful)

qw(name) (718245) | about 2 years ago | (#42020069)

It's all because of greed. Universities have adopted corporate tactics to become and stay "more competitive in the marketplace" and that means shielding themselves from lawsuits and making themselves more appealing to donors.

Re:Coporate Influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020173)

Damn corporations! We need to ban them next!

Mod Parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020179)

Add to the list: administrators will do anything to justify the existence of their job title and keep themselves from being pushed out, even if it means eliminating those who do the real work. Also like corporate America.

Re:Coporate Influence (3, Insightful)

brianerst (549609) | about 2 years ago | (#42020319)

Please. It's because universities are overwhelmingly run by a single ideology (in this case, leftism, but in another time or universe, rightism). Combine a monoculture of 'correct' thought, a hypersensitivity to hurting any favored/traditionally disenfranchised group's feelings and (as you said) fear of lawsuits and the professional outrage club and you get these codes. The fact that university faculty are usually the strongest supporters of and agitators for these codes should be shocking, but sadly it isn't.

Corporations generally don't care at all about what you say - they just want your money. It's really only the content industry (MP/RIAA) that wants to throttle speech - ISPs and other non-content groups have been fighting a losing battle against them for years. The internet is brought to you by corporations and for the most part all they care about is charging you for the delivery of bits - the default attitude of nearly all of them when the MP/RIAA started its little crusade was to ignore them or fight back against them. They've added DRM and the like grudgingly at best - it's a cost and a headache to them and pisses off their customers.

Re:Coporate Influence (1)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42020469)

Please. It's because universities are overwhelmingly run by a single ideology (in this case, leftism, but in another time or universe, rightism).

If they're private universities, they can choose whatever ideology or speech codes they like, and students can choose whether to attend or not.

If they're public universities, strong restrictions on free speech on campus are a consequence of restrictions on the use of public funds and resources to promote personal political and religious views.

Re:Coporate Influence (2)

westlake (615356) | about 2 years ago | (#42020329)

Universities have adopted corporate tactics to become and stay "more competitive in the marketplace" and that means shielding themselves from lawsuits and making themselves more appealing to donors.

So, nothing new under the sun.

Re:Coporate Influence (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#42020339)

shielding themselves from lawsuits

The limiting liability part is valid. No one is going to sue students. They have no money. The university has money, so any lawsuits will be directed at them, even if the university had nothing to do with inappropriate behavior by students.

Yes, it's the same with sexual harassment. Nobody sues the offender, who has no money. The employer gets sued. For this reason, companies have explicit policies and education on sexual harassment.

It's simply astute business practice to avoid getting held accountable for another single person's actions.

Re:Coporate Influence (5, Insightful)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 2 years ago | (#42020497)

Speaking of corporations, what the heck is up with the summary: "how universities have become the most authoritarian institutions in America"??

Hmm... the MOST authoritarian institutions in America. A little hyperbole? I suppose it depends on how you define "institution." If you mean "institution" as in "institute" which often implies a research organization, the claim is probably trivially true, since universities are probably the most common independent research organizations in America.

But that's a dumb reading. So if we interpret "institution" in the broader sense of an organization created for a particular purpose, how about... I don't know... the TSA, the military? They aren't "authoritarian" at all... [\sarcasm]

Or, for that matter, most corporations that have at-will employees. How many places could you keep your job if you acted in your workplace like many college students act on college campuses?

The article identifies a real issue, but colleges are now the MOST authoritarian organizations in the U.S.? Hardly.

It's only harassment... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020077)

unless the school does it

University of Delaware Requires Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation
http://thefire.org/article/8555.html

I've seen it first hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020081)

A friend of mine was arrested and trespassed for smoking up in the college library bathroom. He wasn't a student, just a former crackhead that believes in leaching off society (hi trane!). The point is, college libraries should let homeless people like him sleep there at night so they can learn stuff.

Hey Bubba! It's me... (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 years ago | (#42020193)

I notice you stopped accepting those collect calls....can i bum a square?

Typical.. (4, Insightful)

drewsup (990717) | about 2 years ago | (#42020115)

So in order to not offend ANYONE, NO ONE is allowed to say ANYTHING.
This goes right along with sports where there is no winner\ everyone gets a trophy to PC playgrounds with no jungle gyms.
I weep at what has happened to my country in the past 30 years. I think it's time to start again from scratch.

Re:Typical.. (4, Insightful)

reboot246 (623534) | about 2 years ago | (#42020189)

It starts with assaults on free speech, but it ends with destroying the most basic of freedoms - the freedom to fail.

Free Speech Zone on campus (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#42020119)

At the community college im attending to bone up on some tech skills they have a 'free speech zone' in the main quad. It is hideous that the college has institutionalized where and when free speech can occur. I understand the practicality of such a solution, but i cannot ignore its chilling effect.

Ridiculous (-1, Troll)

felix rayman (24227) | about 2 years ago | (#42020157)

Yes, those fascist universities are much more authoritarian than prisons or the military.

There's a joke that "Christ, what an asshole." can be fittingly substituted for the caption of any New Yorker cartoon. It works on Wall Street Journal articles just as well.

One problem with 'Freedom of speech' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020163)

Some have more freedom (i.e. dollars) than others.

Emanating as this does from the WSJ (0, Troll)

akeeneye (1788292) | about 2 years ago | (#42020167)

... I'm not surprised to see the carping about how the right-wing is allegedly being oppressed on college campuses. But it also makes me wonder to what extent Christian schools tolerate free speech. The Wikipedia page for Liberty U describes how the school "un-recognized" the Democratic student group for being ideologically unfit.

High conservative bent (5, Interesting)

Beetle B. (516615) | about 2 years ago | (#42020169)

Most of the examples in the article have a pro-conservative leaning. So I went to their FIRE database and tried to find some cases where I knew universities tried blocking left-wing people from speaking. Not surprisingly, I didn't find at least the ones I was aware of.

I think it's good someone is defending conservatives' right to speech. I simply feel they should be open about their partisanship.

Re:High conservative bent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020283)

Yes...FIRE is good as far as it goes, but it is odd they have an entry for Yale but not for Liberty University.

Re:High conservative bent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020325)

Isn't Free Speech a left-"leaning" topic itself regardless of the topic? Therefore all the examples, at their root, are left-leaning.

Just another example of how stupid the left-right paradigm is to begin with.

Re:High conservative bent (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020361)

No...the issue is that FIRE says it is concerned about freedom at campuses in general, but is largely silent whenever, for example, private religious institutions like Liberty University trounce all over their student's freedom of speech.

Re:High conservative bent (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 2 years ago | (#42020677)

Somewhere like Liberty has goals, and a legal status, very different than those of a state university. The free-speech-related issues at somewhere like Liberty are pretty different than those at a state university.

Re:High conservative bent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020429)

Neither far-right nor far-left nations have ever had much free speech. Liberal can be left or right. Conservative can be left or right. For instance, Soviet Russia was far left and very conservative.

Re:High conservative bent (3, Informative)

DirePickle (796986) | about 2 years ago | (#42020461)

Your first clue should have been that this was an article from the WSJ.

nothing new... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020187)

I graduated in 2001 from the FH Druck und Medien, now School of Media in Germany, and I remember the presentation of a student production being suppressed, by the powers to be, as it was comparing Rumsfeld with Hitler. Keep in mind that was the time of the Gulf War. I admit that particular student work was bad, but that wasn't the reason for it's suppression.
Apparently some of the University's funding came from US sponsors :)

George Carlin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020197)

Carlin used to tour college campuses in the 70s and 80s because they loved freedom of expression and comedy. He even recorded a special, Carlin on Campus, in 1984. In his later years he avoided colleges like the plague because they became centers of cultural intolerance. Extreme bastions for censorship and political correctness. Most of his act was off limits for performance. Campuses were trying to avoid anything that might be the slightest bit offensive or controversial.

Carlin on O&A talking a bit about free speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX5mz27PTv0

Freedom of Speech is Freedom to be an Asshat too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020203)

I don't agree with a lot of viewpoints people have, but Freedom of Speech is where you are free to be a racist, discriminatory sonnofabitch too.

wrong premise (1, Insightful)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42020241)

The premise that anybody should be able to say anything on any campus is wrong, legally, philosophically, and historically. Universities are (for the most part) private institutions, and they can decide what speech is permissible on campus and as part of the educational experience. Good universities will, of course, try to present a wide range of viewpoints, but what they present and how they present it is still up to them. Nor does it seem to me that this has changed a great deal over time. Even in the 1960's, people were protesting and getting arrested because their views differed from those of the institution; if they had agreed, there wouldn't have been any need for protest. Publicly financed universities face a special problem, in that tax dollars may not be used to promote religion and that there are a few other restrictions. That's OK: if you don't like those restrictions, don't attend a public university. That's also why public universities should probably also be only a small component of the overall mix of educational institutions.

Rather than making all universities some kind of free speech compromise in which everybody can say anything except when it offends anybody, we should have a diversity of public and private institutions based on many different viewpoints and ideologies, and people pick and choose the institutions that they think meets their requirements.

Re:wrong premise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020271)

Kill yourself

Re:wrong premise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020389)

I (another anon) think you've been drinking cool aid starting directly from your mother's tit. New generations, with very very few exception are really fucked up. Sad, I know.

The full Fordham University statement (5, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#42020251)

I'm not surprised the Wall Street Journal allowed Mr. Lukianoff to mischaracterize the contents of Fordham's statement.
Read it for yourself and see if it really matches the tone of WSJ's article : http://www.fordham.edu/Campus_Resources/eNewsroom/topstories_2601.asp [fordham.edu]

November 9, 2012

The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.

To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative--more heat than light--and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.

As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.

"Disgust" was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.

Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.

The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter's (and the student organizers') opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy--and one another--stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community, and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.

Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President

Compare and contrast with

Mr. Lukianoff says that the Fordham-Coulter affair took campus censorship to a new level:
"This was the longest, strongest condemnation of a speaker that I've ever seen in which a university president also tried to claim that he was defending freedom of speech."

I guess in the print edition, the WSJ and Lukianoff can assume most people won't actually read the statement being attacked.

Re:The full Fordham University statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020491)

If you're truly surprised, you must be unfamiliar with Murdoch (owner of the WSJ, Fox Propaganda, and others) and his editorial policies.

Re:The full Fordham University statement (4, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#42020543)

I guess in the print edition, the WSJ and Lukianoff can assume most people won't actually read the statement being attacked.

The conservative media doesn't report the news anymore. They take statements out of context and generate their own version of news. Weren't you here during the last election season? ;-)

Re:The full Fordham University statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020639)

The media doesn't report the news anymore. They take statements out of context and generate their own version of news.

FTFY

Re:The full Fordham University statement (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about 2 years ago | (#42020647)

The conservative media doesn't report the news anymore. They take statements out of context and generate their own version of news.

Not so very different from Slashdot.

Re:The full Fordham University statement (1)

briancox2 (2417470) | about 2 years ago | (#42020597)

I am a very conservative voter than nearly always votes Republican. I also agree that Ann Coulter is a polemic that speaks with intention of inciting outrage. She often does more harm for the conservative cause than good because she lacks grace and decency that honors the humanity in those she disagrees with. But that doesn't mean that it is appropriate for a President of a school to make a judgement that she should therefor not be allowed to communicate. That is not the country we live in and it does not represent our value of allowing speech we disagree with. The ACLU once fought for the right of Nazi's to protest in a Jewish neighborhood. And we survived it very well. Today the intolerance of strong language we have prevents us from even expressing things rudely. We have indeed fallen very far.

Re:The full Fordham University statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020697)

It sounds like the guy was condemning the speaker while saying he can't officially prevent it. But it looks like he did prevent it.

Chilling effects?

Hate speech (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#42020261)

This article appears to be bitching and moaning about the fact that hate speech has been universally recognized as out of the scope of free speech. Ann Coulter is generally regarded amongst the cognoscenti as a purveyor of hate speech, not free speech. I fail to see how denying her an audience of like-minded listeners could possibly be bad in any way.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Anyone who supports this Islamophobic nutbag is a like-minded nutbag who is not welcome on any university campus. Her ideas practically beg to be suppressed, so why should she be surprised when it happens? Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Re:Hate speech (3)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#42020301)

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Exactly. Just look at how offensive she is! Anything that offends me must be destroyed.

Re:Hate speech (3, Insightful)

Smallpond (221300) | about 2 years ago | (#42020397)

This article appears to be bitching and moaning about the fact that hate speech has been universally recognized as out of the scope of free speech. Ann Coulter is generally regarded amongst the cognoscenti as a purveyor of hate speech, not free speech. I fail to see how denying her an audience of like-minded listeners could possibly be bad in any way.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Anyone who supports this Islamophobic nutbag is a like-minded nutbag who is not welcome on any university campus. Her ideas practically beg to be suppressed, so why should she be surprised when it happens? Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If she is wrong, let her speak and then rebut her remarks. Any suppression of free speech is a mistake. Her "like-minded listeners" will hear her anyway. I don't object to letting her speak. What I object to is "journalists" who report her garbage as though it is coming from a respectable source.

Freedom is not granted by the administration (4, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42020269)

...it is exercised by the students. In the sixties, freedom of expression on campus sometimes had a high cost. University administrations may have bowed to expediency in the seventies and eighties, but it does appear that the old shackles are back in place, although some of them have different names.

Today's students can take back their freedom of expression, but will they have the guts to do so? Or will they continue to lament that "the man" doesn't allow them to say unpopular things?

Re:Freedom is not granted by the administration (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 2 years ago | (#42020619)

Today's students can take back their freedom of expression, but will they have the guts to do so? Or will they continue to lament that "the man" doesn't allow them to say unpopular things?

And how can they do that when their fellow students continue to play the role of Judas, siding with the administration and perpetuating the condescending liberal attitudes and beliefs which led to the present situation in the first place? The students who support limiting speech to avoid hurting feelings are fools, but unfortunately for the rest of us they aren't stupid and so remain the useful idiots of the administration and faculty who support these asinine policies out of intellectual laziness and lack of character.

Re:Freedom is not granted by the administration (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42020691)

You do it, and then you stand by it, damn the consequences. That's how it was done in the sixties, and there was collateral damage at first.

But you need the courage of your convictions, and I'm not sure the current crop of students can muster that.

Re:Freedom is not granted by the administration (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 2 years ago | (#42020727)

The administration owns the property, and can use the police to remove students they don't want there.

The students have no such power, at least not on short notice. (They can perhaps get injunctions, but that takes time and money. Campus police can be less... deliberate.)

Ideology replaced culture (1)

hessian (467078) | about 2 years ago | (#42020299)

We have outsourced our own brains and the decisions normally made by cultural mores to ideology.

Ideology is a type of political theory that we assume is true, so we crusade toward it in the name of Progress and Utopia.

Naturally, because it is a theory, it's unstable. In fact, there is often proof against it. But its adherents cling to it even more, because it provides for them an identity separate from their real-world identity.

However, this instability leads to it having a need: as a symbol, it must prevail over other symbols. Thus it is intolerant of them, but in the name of tolerance itself.

Re:Ideology replaced culture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020675)

It goes a step further. Ideology clung to to an infinite degree becomes a de facto religion. This phenomenon can be seen when an essentially Marx-worshipping person campaigns against students voluntariiy meeting to practice their religion on public school grounds but finds no problem with "Das Kapital" in the school library.

Meaning of education (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#42020311)

Students should learn what they will face later in the real world. Knowing how things are going, i'd say that it complies with that mission.

SEND MONEY TO FIRE. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR M (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020333)

People, listen! In addition to blogging, you need to put your money where your mouths are. FIRE's litigation costs money. We need to fund organizations that actually try to DO something about the stuff that is killing liberty in this country.

"news" for "nerds" ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020353)

Has slashdot really been reduced to quoting print newspapers days later?
Used to try to be "news" for nerds.
Now it's more like "yesterday's leftover articles" for nerds who don't read the press and seemingly are without enough nerdy topics to fill the space available.

Some cheese with that Whine? (1, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#42020387)

Whine Whine. It is so much like the entitled to whine because they cannot have their people come in and tell the peasants how horrible we are. Nothing changes. The christian conservatives feel they have the responsibility to tell us we are all going to hell if we don't believe they way they do, to tell us that we can't have sex with whom we want when we want, to tell us that we can't buy drinks on Sundays, or that we have to sit and listen respectfully while they pray, but when we want one thing we are being 'emotional'.

To make matters worse, if someone wanted to show that being gay was a normal productive life choice, they would say it violated their religious liberties. But if they want to bring in a women who condones murder,compares liberals with murders, and has called for the assassination of the president, they say we are being intolerant and politically correct.

Really, when I was back is school it was the Christian conservatives, those fragile flowers that would faint if a poem had the word fuck in it, or if they saw a couple guys kissing, or had the leave the classroom when we discussed classic american literature because it was the devils work, these were the people who create censorship on americans campus. They would bring in the child molesting priests to cry foul. They would bring in the ministers to deny women proper care and choice because the only way they could hope to get a wife was to knock her up and make her dependent. It was sad.

And I am sure the comments are going to prove my point, because I am not hating any one here. Everyone has a right to express their opinion and try to have a life that fits with their values. But it was never the liberal groups who were trying to cut funding for the legal conservative groups. And it was never the liberal groups trying to foce everyone to pray, or waste their time listening to others pray. We held our events and if you did not want to go, then don't.

Here is how screwed up these people were. We were in a conservative state in a somewhat conservative city, but a city that was diverse so people pretty much let everyone do what they do. These wingnuts were so extreme that created their own campus newspaper because they couldn't stand to be in the same room with liberals. And I disagreed with most of the official newspaper, it was conservative. But if these people could not get thier way they did not know how to compromise, so they took their toys, found a sugar daddy, and built their own compound where they would not have to deal with anyone who was different. And evidently that is what they still do, crying when someone calls them on their hypocristy.

Rights apply everywhere (3)

krisamico (452786) | about 2 years ago | (#42020427)

for citizens in good standing. That is the definition of unalienable. Sometimes you have to fight for them though! Not to worry, you are witnessing Peak College. Bloated, wasteful, dysfunctional institutions will vaporize with the credit that pays their ridiculous prices. Goods and services purchased with credit are altered by the supply of said credit. When we stop rewarding failure with bailouts, that is. Affordable education that caters only to the needs of the student body will be a welcome change!

It's not really a protest... (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#42020443)

It's not really a protest if there isn't a rule being broken and an arrest being made!

Higher Education -- Not! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020505)

It's no surprise. Students are no longer interested in higher education as a means of broadening their perceptions of life and deepening their understanding of the world. Most students today only want to acquire paper credentials for employment purposes. Universities have become largely job training institutes. In that kind of environment, freedom of expression becomes secondary if not totally irrelevant, and the disengaged student body will surely never protest over the loss of fundamental human rights.

Nat Henton said exactly this 20 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020545)

In Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee. It's depressing that students haven't forced a change in all that time.

My Parents went to Kent State (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020683)

you insensitive clod

Jews are behind all of this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42020741)

... just try talking about Jews in less than glowing terms on any university campus, you'll be sacked or thrown off your course immediately. And all the while the Jews are murdering Palestinian babies and children, because 'God gave us this land'.

The eternal JEW is behind this.

"The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny."

Nothing has changed:

"The Jew
by Joseph Goebbels
Everything is discussed openly in Germany, and every German claims the right to have an opinion on any and all questions. One is Catholic, the other Protestant, one an employee, the other an employer, a capitalist, a socialist, a democrat, an aristocrat. There is nothing dishonorable about choosing one side or the other of a question. Discussions happen in public, and where matters are unclear or confused one settles it by argument and counter argument. But there is one problem that is not discussed publicly, one that it is delicate even to mention: the Jewish question. It is taboo in our republic.
The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've been found out." "

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>